Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Clin Drug Investig. 2017 Jan;37(1):85-94. doi: 10.1007/s40261-016-0463-2.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.

Author information

1
Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital, Boulevard Fleming, 25030, Besançon Cedex, France. v1nerich@chu-besancon.fr.
2
University Bourgogne Franche-Comté, INSERM, EFS BFC, UMR1098, Interactions hôte-greffon-tumeur - Ingénierie Cellulaire et Génique, Besançon, France. v1nerich@chu-besancon.fr.
3
Department of Pharmacy, University Hospital, Boulevard Fleming, 25030, Besançon Cedex, France.
4
Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital, Besançon, France.
5
Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France.
6
University Bourgogne Franche-Comté, INSERM, EFS BFC, UMR1098, Interactions hôte-greffon-tumeur - Ingénierie Cellulaire et Génique, Besançon, France.
7
Department of Pediatry, University Hospital, Besançon, France.
8
Department of Medicine, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.
9
University Claude Bernard, Lyon, France.
10
French Sarcoma Group (GSF-GETO), Paris, France.
11
European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), Brussels, Belgium.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

The management of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) has been modified considerably by the availability of costly tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs); however, the best therapeutic sequence in terms of cost and effectiveness remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this study was to compare four potential strategies (reflecting the potential daily practice), each including imatinib 400 mg/day, as first-line treatment: S1 (imatinib400/best supportive care [BSC]); S2 (imatinib400/imatinib800/BSC); S3 (imatinib400/sunitinib/BSC); and S4 (imatinib400/imatinib800/sunitinib/BSC).

METHODS:

A Markov model was developed with a hypothetical cohort of patients and a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities were estimated from the results of clinical trials. The analysis was performed from the French payer perspective, and only direct medical costs were included. Clinical and economic parameters were discounted, and the robustness of results was assessed.

RESULTS:

The least costly and effective strategy was S1, at a cost of €65,744 for 32.9 life months (reference). S3 was the most cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €48,277/life-year saved (LYS). S2 was dominated, and S4 yielded an ICER of €363,320/LYS compared with S3. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results; however, when taking into account a price reduction of 80 % for imatinib, S2 and S4 become the most cost-effective strategies.

CONCLUSION:

Our approach is innovative to the extent that our analysis takes into account the sequential application of TKIs. The results suggest that the S1 strategy is the best cost-effective strategy, but a price reduction of imatinib impacts on the results. This approach must continue, including new drugs and their impact on the quality of life of patients with advanced GISTs.

PMID:
27665470
DOI:
10.1007/s40261-016-0463-2
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center